In re Gault, the mentioned case that brought the Constitution to juvenile courts is quite farked up.

Gerald Gault was accused of making an obscene phone call by a neighbor. He was arrested without his parents being informed, held without notification of the charges, not allowed an attorney, and not allowed to confront his accuser. The witnesses weren't sworn in and there was no record taken.

He was then sentenced to six years in juvenile detention. If he was 18 when accused, the maximum would have been two months and a $50 fine.

A lot of people think that being tried as a juvenile is simply a slap on the wrist. (thanks to TV and the movies) That's why these things can happen, because no one believes that there is a problem. In fact, I'd wager that a lot of people think the juvenile system needs to be much harsher to be "tough on crime."

This is the kind of thing that everyone needs to know about because it's what can happen to your kids. We like to think that it would never happen to our kids, because our kids are good and never get in trouble. In fact, those are the kinds of kids who could be abused the most by the system, as the parents are completely unprepared to deal with it.

This is a very good article. It reminds me of the article Rolling Stone wrote in 2009 about how the court system was unfairly stacked against homeowners in the aftermath of the economic collapse. Up until then, I had no idea what was really going on in there. I believe that article helped enact a few of the reforms that helped homeowners.

Subby is either trolling or an idiot. Your headline is bad and you should feel bad.

DrBenway:Rolling Stone used to have a pretty good reputation for digging into stories like this. Do they still do longer form stuff, or is this the extent of it?

Matt Taibbi did some of the hands-down best coverage of the shenanigans going on in the financial sector, not just the mortgage scandal but things like the rigging of municipal bonds. Sadly, he left for First Look media and hasn't done so much as a blog post in months.

Gerald Gault was accused of making an obscene phone call by a neighbor. He was arrested without his parents being informed, held without notification of the charges, not allowed an attorney, and not allowed to confront his accuser. The witnesses weren't sworn in and there was no record taken.

He was then sentenced to six years in juvenile detention. If he was 18 when accused, the maximum would have been two months and a $50 fine.

the easiest reference or example for all of this is the kids for cash scandal in PA.

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich:DrBenway: Rolling Stone used to have a pretty good reputation for digging into stories like this. Do they still do longer form stuff, or is this the extent of it?

Matt Taibbi did some of the hands-down best coverage of the shenanigans going on in the financial sector, not just the mortgage scandal but things like the rigging of municipal bonds. Sadly, he left for First Look media and hasn't done so much as a blog post in months.

From the photo in the farking article: Colorado recently passed a law meant to address the denial of counsel to children in juvenile court.

From the article: Earlier this month, Colorado scored a victory for juveniles in criminal proceedings by passing House Bill 1032, a law that will ensure that all children will be represented by counsel when they appear in court.

Well yeah, that. Though honestly, it wasn't nearly as good as his last book, and it covered most of the same stuff that Greenwald's previous book did (two-tiered justice system) but in a much more anecdotal, less methodical way.

From what I've seen of the juvenile justice system here, the article is spot on. In most cases the kids never even set foot in a courtroom. The case gets adjudicated and sent straight to probation without the kids or parents even knowing. It's like they're found guilty by default without ever setting foot in a courtroom.

ski9600:From the photo in the farking article: Colorado recently passed a law meant to address the denial of counsel to children in juvenile court.

From the article: Earlier this month, Colorado scored a victory for juveniles in criminal proceedings by passing House Bill 1032, a law that will ensure that all children will be represented by counsel when they appear in court.

FTA: . . . undocumented children entering the country may find themselves in deportation proceedings without the assistance of counsel. "I've seen kids as young as five go into court without a lawyer," says Wendy Young, president of Kids In Need of Defense (KIND), which represents unaccompanied immigrant and refugee children.

HammerHeadSnark:FTA: . . . undocumented children entering the country may find themselves in deportation proceedings without the assistance of counsel. "I've seen kids as young as five go into court without a lawyer," says Wendy Young, president of Kids In Need of Defense (KIND), which represents unaccompanied immigrant and refugee children.

Wait...Isn't this the same magazine who gave that Tsarnaev asshole the rockstar treatment- with a boyish picture for naive girls to swoon over- on the cover of their 'magazine' along with the headlining story?

Oh, and didn't they also give one of the most canned editorial responses to intentionally creating their controversy by saying that since Deer Jerky Czar is about the same age as their tired, egotistical, and arrogant reader base, that his story deserves the coverage because Rolling Stone is a 'serious' periodical, and...you know...we need to sell magazines (that one article doubled its newsstand sales)?

Yeah, fark this magazine. I agree that the juvy system in this country needs some serious overhaul. But Rolling Stone isn't going to be my credible source for hard journalism on this topic.

Etc. If you are in court, that last one is the only thing you should say. Do not plea. Do not talk to the prosecutor. Just keep telling the judge you want an attorney. But say it respectfully! That's damn important. Judges get very pissed off if you are an asshole in his court.

BTW, a standard cop tactic is to answer your question with a question. For example, asking "am I under arrest?" will often get the response of, "do you want to be?" Just repeat the question. Refuse to answer his questions.

You do not have to answer any questions. If a cop insists you must answer his questions, he is lying.

But it's hardly unexpected in a system where you can't choose to act as an adult until you are 18, but you can be held responsible as an adult when you are 12. Or a system where a trial that decides where who will be your legal parent doesn't include you as a party to the case (so you aren't even entitled to access to the sealed court records, let alone representation at the trial). Or a system that sees the problem of poor school attendance and thinks the solution is jail time for the young person in question -- you know, because being in jail makes it so much more likely for a person to attend their classes.

As has been noted by jurists for decades, we like to say that we treat children gently, and use that as an justification for their reduced freedoms, but we often both withhold rights from them and hold them just as accountable as older people.

Of course, what gets left out is that a lot of juvies go to court with their parents, and that the parents are quite happy to send Junior off for a stint in juvenile hall so the little monster will stop stealing everything in sight or beating the crap out of Grandma.

A lot of them get no representation because Mom and Dad know the kid actually did the crime, and think they should suffer a little - or a lot - for it.

The linked PDF - from the Colorado Juvenile Defender Coalition - whines about "we observed five children shackled and chained together at the ankles walking into court." How old are those "children?" Ten? Seventeen? Are they five feet tall and 100 pounds, or six feet tall and 200? Can't tell from the article.

Oh hey, this should be interesting to scroll through, what with people like Thunderpipes who endorse beating children so badly they need hospitalization, stitches and followup care for the concussion.. not to mention flogging the skin off a kid's back and lower with a metal spatula.

TheEdibleSnuggie:Wait...Isn't this the same magazine who gave that Tsarnaev asshole the rockstar treatment- with a boyish picture for naive girls to swoon over- on the cover of their 'magazine' along with the headlining story?

Oh, and didn't they also give one of the most canned editorial responses to intentionally creating their controversy by saying that since Deer Jerky Czar is about the same age as their tired, egotistical, and arrogant reader base, that his story deserves the coverage because Rolling Stone is a 'serious' periodical, and...you know...we need to sell magazines (that one article doubled its newsstand sales)?

Yeah, fark this magazine. I agree that the juvy system in this country needs some serious overhaul. But Rolling Stone isn't going to be my credible source for hard journalism on this topic.

Yeah, they should photoshopped in the crazy eyes.I've got no problem with reminding kids that evil doesn't wear a black cloak and twirl its moustache.

cirby:Of course, what gets left out is that a lot of juvies go to court with their parents, and that the parents are quite happy to send Junior off for a stint in juvenile hall so the little monster will stop stealing everything in sight or beating the crap out of Grandma.

Unlike most people, I get that somewhere there's supposed to be some kind of joke in the headline connecting Rolling Stone and Kangaroo Courts... I just don't farking get it. The Tsarnaev connection seems tenuous at best. Fail, subby.

cirby: Of course, what gets left out is that a lot of juvies go to court with their parents, and that the parents are quite happy to send Junior off for a stint in juvenile hall so the little monster will stop stealing everything in sight or beating the crap out of Grandma.